Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations

Open access
Eyre-Walker, Adam, Keightley, Peter D.·2007·Nature Reviews Genetics
DOI 10.1038/nrg2146
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of new mutations is a fundamental entity in genetics that has implications ranging from the genetic basis of complex disease to the stability of the molecular clock. It has been studied by two different approaches: mutation accumulation and mutagenesis experiments, and the analysis of DNA sequence data. The proportion of mutations that are advantageous, effectively neutral and deleterious varies between species, and the DFE differs between coding and non-coding DNA. Despite these differences between species and genomic regions, some general principles have emerged: advantageous mutations are rare, and those that are strongly selected are exponentially distributed; and the DFE of deleterious mutations is complex and multi-modal.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg2146

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Crow, J. F. How much do we know about spontaneous human mutation rates? Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 21, 122–129 (1993). · DOI
  2. Kondrashov, A. S. & Crow, J. F. A molecular approach to estimating the human deleterious mutation rate. Hum. Mutat. 2, 229–234 (1993). · DOI
  3. Ohta, T. The nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 263–286 (1992). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Loewe, L. Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genet. Res. 87, 133–159 (2006). · DOI
  5. Charlesworth, D., Charlesworth, B. & Morgan, M. T. The pattern of neutral molecular variation under the background selection model. Genetics 141, 1619–1632 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Peck, J. R., Barreau, G. & Heath, S. C. Imperfect genes, Fisherian mutation and the evolution of sex. Genetics 145, 1171–1199 (1997). · DOI
  7. Caballero, A. & Keightley, P. D. A pleiotropic nonadditive model of variation in quantitative traits. Genetics 138, 883–900 (1994). · DOI
  8. Zhang, X. S. & Hill, W. G. Genetic variability under mutation selection balance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 468–470 (2005). · DOI
  9. Eyre-Walker, A., Woolfit, M. & Phelps, T. The distribution of fitness effects of new deleterious amino acid mutations in humans. Genetics 173, 891–900 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Schultz, S. T. & Lynch, M. Mutation and extinction: the role of variable mutational effects, synergistic epistasis, beneficial mutations and degree of outcrossing. Evolution 51, 1363–1371 (1997). · DOI
  11. Reich, D. E. & Lander, E. S. On the allelic spectrum of human disease. Trends Genet. 17, 502–510 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Johnson, T. & Barton, N. H. Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 1411–1425 (2005). · DOI
  13. Burch, C. L., Guyader, C., Samarov, D. & Shen, H. Experimental estimate of the abundance and effects of nearly neutral mutations in the RNA virus φ6. Genetics 176, 467–476 (2007). · DOI
  14. Elena, S. F., Ekunwe, L., Hajela, N., Oden, S. A. & Lenski, R. E. Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102–103, 349–358 (1998). · DOI
  15. Thatcher, J. W., Shaw, J. M. & Dickinson, W. J. Marginal fitness contributions of nonessential genes in yeast. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 253–257 (1998). · DOI
  16. Wloch, D. M., Szafraniec, K., Borts, R. H. & Korona, R. Direct estimate of the mutation rate and the distribution of fitness effects in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 159, 441–452 (2001). · DOI
  17. Mukai, T. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Spontaneous mutation rate of polygenes controlling viability. Genetics 50, 1–19 (1964). The first mutation accumulation experiment. · DOI
  18. Ohnishi, O. Spontaneous and ethyl methanesulfate-induced mutations controlling viability in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Homozygous effect of polygenic mutations. Genetics 87, 529–545 (1977). · DOI
  19. Bataillon, T. Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84, 497–501 (2000). · DOI
  20. Joseph, S. B. & Hall, D. W. Spontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected. Genetics 168, 1817–1825 (2004). · DOI
  21. Shaw, F. H., Geyer, C. J. & Shaw, R. G. A comprehensive model of mutations affecting fitness and inferences for Arabidopsis thaliana. Evolution 56, 453–463 (2002). · DOI
  22. Bateman, A. J. The viability of near-normal irradiated chromosomes. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 1, 170–180 (1959).
  23. Garcia-Dorado, A. The rate and effects distribution of viable mutation in Drosophila: minimum distance estimation. Evolution 51, 1130–1139 (1997).
  24. Keightley, P. D. The distribution of mutation effects on viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 138, 1315–1322 (1994). · DOI
  25. Keightley, P. D. Inference of genome wide mutation rates and distributions of mutations effects for fitness traits: a simulation study. Genetics 150, 1283–1293 (1998). · DOI
  26. Davies, E. K., Peters, A. D. & Keightley, P. D. High frequency of cryptic deleterious mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 285, 1748–1751 (1999). Shows that most mutations are undectable in a mutation accumulation study and that the DFE of deleterious mutations must be complex and multi-modal. · DOI
  27. Denver, D. R., Morris, K., Lynch, M. & Thomas, W. K. High mutation rate and predominance of insertions in the Caenorhabditis elegans nuclear genome. Nature 430, 679–682 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  28. Eyre-Walker, A., Keightley, P. D., Smith, N. G. C. & Gaffney, D. Quantifying the slightly deleterious model of molecular evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 2142–2149 (2002). · DOI
  29. Loewe, L. & Charlesworth, B. Inferring the distribution of mutational effects on fitness in Drosophila. Biol. Lett. 2, 426–430 (2006). · DOI
  30. Loewe, L., Charlesworth, B., Bartolome, C. & Noel, V. Estimating selection on nonsynonymous mutations. Genetics 172, 1079–1092 (2006). · DOI
  31. Nielsen, R. & Yang, Z. Estimating the distribution of selection coefficients from phylogenetic data with applications to mitochondrial and viral DNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 1231–1239 (2003). · DOI
  32. Piganeau, G. & Eyre-Walker, A. Estimating the distribution of fitness effects from DNA sequence data: implications for the molecular clock. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 10335–10340 (2003). · DOI
  33. Sawyer, S., Kulathinal, R. J., Bustamante, C. D. & Hartl, D. L. Bayesian analysis suggests that most amino acid replacements in Drosophila are driven by positive selection. J. Mol. Evol. 57, S154–S164 (2003). · DOI
  34. Bustamante, C. D., Wakeley, J., Sawyer, S. & Hartl, D. L. Directional selection and the site-frequency spectrum. Genetics 159, 1779–1788 (2001). · DOI
  35. Bubb, K. L. et al. Scan of human genome reveals no new loci under ancient balancing selection. Genetics 173, 2165–2177 (2006). · DOI
  36. Kimura, M. Genetic variability maintained in a finite population due to the mutational production of neutral and nearly neutral isoalleles. Genet. Res. 11, 247–269 (1968). · DOI · Paper page
  37. Johnson, K. P. & Seger, J. Elevated rates of nonsynonymous substitution in island birds. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 874–881 (2001). · DOI
  38. Woolfit, M. & Bromham, L. Population size and molecular evolution on islands. Proc. Biol. Sci. 272, 2277–2282 (2005). · DOI
  39. Silander, O. K., Tenaillon, O. & Chao, L. Understanding the evolutionary fate of finite populations: the dynamics of mutational effects. PLoS Biol. 5, e94 (2007). Shows that the DFE is highly dependent on the fitness of the population that is being considered. · DOI
  40. Subramanian, S. & Kumar, S. Higher intensity of purifying selection on >90% of the human genes revealed by the intrinsic replacement mutation rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 2283–2287 (2006). · DOI
  41. Eyre-Walker, A. Changing effective population size and the McDonald–Kreitman test. Genetics 162, 2017–2024 (2002). · DOI
  42. Charlesworth, J. & Eyre-Walker, A. The rate of adaptive evolution in enteric bacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 1348–1356 (2006). · DOI
  43. Orgel, L. E. & Crick, F. H. C. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature 284, 604–607 (1980). · DOI
  44. Cliften, P. et al. Finding functional features in Saccharomyces genomes by phylogenetic footprinting. Science 301, 71–76 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Webb, C. T., Shabalina, S. A., Ogurtsov, A. Y. & Kondrashov, A. S. Analysis of similarity within 142 pairs of orthologous intergenic regions of Caenorhabditis elegans and Caenorhabditis briggsae. Nucleic. Acids Res. 30, 1233–1239 (2002). · DOI
  46. Andolfatto, P. Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila. Nature 437, 1149–1152 (2005). Provided the first evidence that adaptive evolution is widespread in Drosophila non-coding DNA. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Bergman, C. M. & Kreitman, M. Analysis of conserved noncoding DNA in Drosophila reveals similar constraints in intergenic and intronic sequences. Genome Res. 11, 1335–1345 (2001). Provided the first indication that extensive amounts of Drosophila non-coding DNA is subject to selection. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Halligan, D. L. & Keightley, P. D. Ubiquitous selective constraints in the Drosophila genome revealed by a genome-wide interspecies comparison. Genome Res. 16, 875–884 (2006). · DOI
  49. Dermitzakis, E. T. et al. Numerous potentially functional but non-genic conserved sequences on human chromosome 21. Nature 420, 578–582 (2002). Provided the clearest evidence that substantial amounts of mammalian non-coding DNA is subject to selective constraint. · DOI
  50. Koop, B. F. Human and rodent DNA sequence comparisons: a mosaic model of genomic evolution. Trends Genet. 11, 367–371 (1995). · DOI
  51. Shabalina, S. A., Ogurtsov, A. Y., Kondrashov, V. A. & Kondrashov, A. S. Selective constraint in intergenic regions of human and mouse genomes. Trends Genet. 17, 373–376 (2001). · DOI
  52. Dermitzakis, E. T., Reymond, A. & Antonarakis, S. E. Conserved non-genic sequences — an unexpected feature of mammalian genomes. Nature Rev. Genet. 6, 151–157 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  53. Gaffney, D. & Keightley, P. D. Genomic selective constraints in murid noncoding DNA. PLoS Genet. 2, e204 (2006). · DOI
  54. Eyre-Walker, A. The genomic rate of adaptive evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 569–575 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  55. Zhang, L. & Li, W.-H. Human SNPs reveal no evidence of frequent positive selection. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 2504–2507 (2005). · DOI
  56. Bierne, N. & Eyre-Walker, A. Genomic rate of adaptive amino acid substitution in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1350–1360 (2004). · DOI
  57. Smith, N. G. C. & Eyre-Walker, A. Adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila. Nature 415, 1022–1024 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  58. Welch, J. J. Estimating the genome-wide rate of adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila. Genetics 173, 821–837 (2006). · DOI
  59. Bachtrog, D. & Andolfatto, P. Selection, recombination and demographic history in Drosophila miranda. Genetics 174, 2045–2059 (2006). · DOI
  60. Williamson, S. H. Adaptation in the env gene of HIV-1 and evolutionary theories of disease progression. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 1318–1325 (2003). · DOI
  61. Keightley, P. D., Lercher, M. J. & Eyre-Walker, A. Evidence for widespread degradation of gene control regions in hominid genomes. PLoS Biol. 3, e42 (2005). · DOI
  62. Gillespie, J. H. Molecular evolution over the mutational landscape. Evolution 38, 1116–1129 (1984). · DOI · Paper page
  63. Orr, H. A. The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163, 1519–1526 (2003). An extension of the work of Gillespie showing that the DFE of advantageous mutations should be an exponential distribution under certain simplifying assumptions. · DOI · Paper page
  64. Imhof, M. & Schlotterer, C. Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1113–1117 (2001). · DOI
  65. Kassen, R. & Bataillon, T. Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria. Nature Genet. 38, 484–488 (2006). · DOI
  66. Rokyta, D. R., Joyce, P., Caudle, S. B. & Wichman, H. A. An empirical test of the mutational landscape model of adaptation using a single-stranded DNA virus. Nature Genet. 37, 441–444 (2005). · DOI
  67. Cowperthwaite, M. C., Bull, J. J. & Meyers, L. A. Distributions of beneficial fitness effects in RNA. Genetics 170, 1449–1457 (2005). Provided evidence that the DFE of advantageous mutations is not an exponential distribution. · DOI
  68. Bratteler, M., Lexer, C. & Widmer, A. Genetic architecture of traits associated with serpentine adaptation of Silene vulgaris. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 1149–1156 (2006). · DOI
  69. Lexer, C., Rosenthal, D. M., Raymond, O., Donovan, L. A. & Rieseberg, L. H. Genetics of species differences in the wild annual sunflowers, Helianthus annuus and H. petiolaris. Genetics 169, 2225–2239 (2005). · DOI
  70. Schemske, D. W. & Bradshaw, H. D. Jr. Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 11910–11915 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  71. Mukai, T., Chigusa, S. I., Mettler, L. E. & Crow, J. F. Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2, 333–355 (1972).
  72. Vassilieva, L., Hook, A. M. & Lynch, M. The fitness effects of spontaneous mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Evolution 54, 1234–1246 (2000). · DOI
  73. Elena, S. F. & Moya, A. Rate of deleterious mutation and the distribution of its effects on fitness in vesicular stomatitis virus. J. Evol. Biol. 12, 1078–1088 (1999). · DOI
  74. Zeyl, C. & DeVisser, J. A. Estimates of the rate and distribution of fitness effects of spontaneous mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 157, 53–61 (2001). · DOI
  75. Avila, V. et al. Increase of the spontaneous mutation rate in a long-term experiment with Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 173, 267–277 (2006). · DOI
  76. Garcia-Dorado, A., Monedero, J. L. & Lopez-Fanjul, C. The mutation rate and the distribution of mutational effects of viability and fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 102–103, 255–256 (1998). · DOI
  77. Keightley, P. D. Nature of deleterious mutation load in Drosophila. Genetics 144, 1993–1999 (1996). · DOI
  78. Schoen, D. J. Deleterious mutation in related species of the plant genus Amsinckia with contrasting mating systems. Evolution 59, 2370–2377 (2005). · DOI
  79. Garcia-Dorado, A. & Caballero, A. On the average coefficient of dominance of deleterious spontaneous mutations. Genetics 155, 1991–2001 (2000). · DOI
  80. Peters, A. D., Halligan, D. L., Whitlock, M. C. & Keightley, P. D. Dominance and overdominance of mildly deleterious induced mutations for fitness traits in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 165, 589–599 (2003). · DOI
  81. Shaw, R. G. & Chang, S. M. Gene action of new mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 172, 1855–1865 (2006). · DOI
  82. Williamson, S. H. et al. Simultaneous inference of selection and population growth from patterns of variation in the human genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 7882–7887 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  83. Li, W.-H., Tanimura, M. & Sharp, P. M. An evaluation of the molecular clock hypothesis using mammalian DNA sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 25, 330–342 (1987). · DOI · Paper page
  84. Ohta, T. Synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in mammalian genes and the nearly neutral theory. J. Mol. Evol. 40, 56–63 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  85. Bush, E. C. & Lahn, B. T. Selective constraint on noncoding regions of hominid genomes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 1, e73 (2005). · DOI
  86. Keightley, P. D., Kryukov, G. V., Sunyaev, S., Halligan, D. L. & Gaffney, D. J. Evolutionary constraints in conserved nongenic sequences of mammals. Genome Res. 15, 1373–1378 (2005). · DOI
  87. Kryukov, G. V., Schmidt, S. & Sunyaev, S. Small fitness effect of mutations in highly conserved non-coding regions. Hum. Mol. Genet. 14, 2221–2229 (2005). · DOI
  88. Lynch, M. et al. Spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution 53, 645–663 (1999). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,478

Metadata

Authors
Eyre-Walker, A., & Keightley, P. D.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-08
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
610-618
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
DOI
10.1038/nrg2146
OpenAlex
W2062210712
Cited by
1,478
References
5
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nrg2146
The paper
Eyre-Walker, A., & Keightley, P. D. (2007). The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nature Reviews Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2146

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.